Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  March 19, 2015 12:30am-2:31am EDT

12:30 am
will cement the rest of my questions for the record. >> thank you, senator cruise? sumac thank you thank you for being here. the internet has become the an opportunity. and i believe that this proposes a profound threat on the internet. ..
12:31 am
>> sir, i sir, i would be happy to get a specific legal response. i think that what the court saying is that the commission is proposing common carrier like regulation without stepping up and saying you are a common carrier a common carrier which is what essentially that statement says, i believe. violating the communications act if you are doing these common carriage like requirements without making a finding that that in fact, they are common carriers.
12:32 am
>> the specific order that was put out, was is subject to ordinary notice and comment? specifically to what was the public able to look at the details and comment on it? >> there was a full notice and comment preceding longer than average. >> was the public able to view the specific details and comment on the specific details of this order before it was adopted? >> the order was put out in keeping with the process. >> you are avoiding saying the word no. >> because with due respect sir, the o'reilly will never -- >> my question simply cause the public able to read the order and comment on it? >> that is not the way the process works. i believe that's an answer. >> mr. chairman, i didn't ask chairman, i did not estimate the process worked. yes or no.
12:33 am
the public never reads orders. the answer is no. >> just a few weeks io president obama's executive amnesty was joined by a federal court. the the the commission's action represents an abuse of its authority. let's shift to the effectiveness of treating broadband providers as common carriers bring them under title ii subjects them to section 201 which gives the commission the ability according to section 201 all charges and practices should be just and reasonable. that means -- i want to understand the effect of the commission's order. it has full legal authority from this day forward to
12:34 am
regulate every charge and practice of every broadband provider to do with whether they are just and reasonable >> we have said that we believe they should operate the same way section 332's. >> you seem to be misunderstanding my question. i understand you're telling us you will forbear from using this authority. >> what is the legal authority. >> i am correct it is the mission's position that it has the legal authority to regulate every single charge and practice of every broadband provider to determine whether those charges and practices are just and reasonable. >> there has been removed from the item the procedures the commission would use to do that as in terrapin retail rate regulation. >> you are not arguing that you lack the legal authority
12:35 am
right now you refrain from doing that. >> am arguing that the tools to make that happen have specifically bit. it explicitly prohibiting the commission from regulating regulate individual practices of broadband providers. you claim i no that we should trust the commission. would you support legislation? >> i need i need to be careful. i would be happy to provide input to the committee. i want to be careful about saying i am endorsing legislation arguing against legislation. i think raise is that in any open internet will legislation there should not be consumer rate regulation.
12:36 am
>> one final question. my time is expiring. would you share with this committee with the impact is likely to be at this order are consumers? the tactics of the impact of innovation opportunity? >> thank you. the impact will be substantial. consumer broadband bills will go up. and then the studies suggest it will be $11 billion each and every year which assumes they do not increase the amount is promised to spend on universal service programs. additionally, fees will go up as a result of increasing state and local taxes. telecom providers traditionally. high rate i no a lot of the broadband providers to lower rate is going to go.
12:37 am
if that is just the bills. bills. in terms of the service reduction across this country will be substantial. you have heard or exchanges about how they will either have to suck up the cost to go out of business altogether. some larger providers will have to include a line item second-guess the infrastructure. all of these things now go through the fcc. consumers will suffer as a result of the second-guess. the chairman pointed out that we don't know where it's going to go. they will sit there is enough for me to throw the flag but no one even knows what the game is. atf proconsumer things which
12:38 am
allows the free streaming of music videos outside that may be a violation. ironically enough it will be competitive wireless upstarts who want to challenge the big boys. let's make sure we get an advisory opinion to make sure this. and so is bush as a result of all of this that the internetworking to the benefit of consumers will be lawyers bureaucrats and politicians. >> thank you very much. powerful he said. >> and appears, appears to rubio. >> thank you. this has been a long afternoon. there there are a few more questions. i appreciate your service
12:39 am
this is going to go primarily to commissioner rose morsel because of your work in this area. there is without question and as tremendous demand for wi-fi and devices using unlicensed spectrum. as a result, the upper five ghz band is being targeted for potential sharing, particularly the 75 megahertz reserved for the use of intelligent transportation systems including b2b in v2 i the two i which utilize the dedicated short-range communication service systems. as supportive of sharing
12:40 am
this many years spectrum has been reserved without being used which ignores the millions of dollars that have been invested thousands of hours spent focused on the technology. these connected vehicles are being deployed today in pilot programs on the streets of ann arbor michigan the national traffic highway safety administration has taken action that will likely lead to a rulemaking this year. the agency has the agency has said that the 2 feet to lie has the potential to mitigate or eliminate 80 percent of all accidents that occur right now. we now. we continue to focus on advanced intelligent transportation systems we can spur innovation be able to create jobs and discover new business models and opportunities that have not previously possible can save thousands of lives in the process. i contend that we should not do anything that would
12:41 am
derail this incredible come. opening the beds were wi-fi is life-saving technologies. >> thank you, senator. you you undoubtedly no that the demand for our airways has grown exponentially over the last decade and certainly is true. since 1999 the spectrum was set aside for the kind of intelligent transportation system you are describing. no the development has been slow, but a lot of resources have been ported to. since 1999 something else has happened. we have grown much better at managing interference and
12:42 am
allowing for the sharing of services in all spectrum. it is my hope that we can explore how this could be a a shared spectrum for both unlicensed and it has services. i take your.that we absolutely cannot sacrifice safety in the process. >> i appreciate that in your concern to make sure that is at the top of your list. chairman, if you would care to comment. >> i think the chairman is spot on. the future is all about how you can share. of the encouraging thing is intelligent transportation systems and wi-fi are not that dissimilar. and so essentially sending information the same kind of way. that is what we are encouraging. >> i appreciate that. mr. chairman, i want to yield back. >> thank you. i thank you, senator, for
12:43 am
yielding so that i could make it to my next appointment. i want to begin with you. providing all sorts of economic growth and innovation that was previously unimaginable. wireless traffic is projected to grow exponentially. because of this i introduced legislation to free up additional spectrum for commercial use licensed and unlicensed. i believe we should be enacting policies that ensure the united states continues to lead the world in wireless innovation and technology. it is my personal opinion that the fcc net neutrality order is quite frankly the opposite of what we should be doing. i would be interested to hear you talk about the impact that the order we will have a wireless and wireless consumers are interested in this topic. >> thank you for your lead.
12:44 am
it is backwards and how it approaches wireless issues for purposes of judging whether wireless should be treated as offering broadband services. for purposes of applying title ii we say yes. title ii application to wireless services one is the violation of a statute. the statute is fairly clear. the pointed out that 33 to seek is to the question of wireless voice. wireless data has never been treated as a common carrier services should not be. it is something we should celebrate rather than regulate. it is something you have been a leader on at something we should move forward with. the commission has is completely backward. >> as you know, i introduced the wi-fi innovation act and did so because of the growth potential of wi-fi and the need for more unlicensed spectrum. i am pleased that the commission has made additional unlicensed spectrum available but i'm
12:45 am
hopeful we can make progress in the upper band which is where our bill is focused. what is the process and timing for bringing that additional and into use? what is your plan to break that logjam? can the fcc use its leadership to push the problems ahead? >> i don't mean to comment because sen. peters is no longer here. i can't make the commitment he asked for. the work of my colleagues in the issue in think it is something we can do while still protecting the dsr see we can do both in this band. there are not too far apart and it is something that we can do. technical reasons. i think that is problematic. >> commissioner, i wanted to ask you, the internet is
12:46 am
becoming an incredible incubator under the stewardship of this country. in a speech last year the free state foundation policy seminar he said public utility regulation would embolden foreign governments around the world that want to impose greater international regulation upon the internet. not only am i concerned about the negative impact on investment and innovation by subjecting broadband to title ii regulations for what i am concerned that the message this sends to other governments around the globe who seek blatant greater control. what in your opinion on the international implications? potential international implications of the fcc applying title ii to the internet? >> thank you for the question. the international implications are worrying. that concern was best expressed in 2009 when he
12:47 am
said that the net neutrality proceeding will be viewed by foreign countries as an excuse to regulate content and infrastructure in a way that might not be consistent with our own policies. all the technical issues might be dissimilar from the less the overall message that is sent is that the fcc or the us government wants to micromanage how the internet works. it it becomes difficult to maintain of the international stage. we want a free and open internet. the same repressive foreign regimes can say you yourself said the internet is broken. >> we are arguing that government has no role to play in on the other hand saying our own government has said there is a problem we need to solve. >> i met with foreign regulators. this this is no more
12:48 am
regulating the internet than the first amendment regulate free speech. the internet is open. i met two weeks ago with all of the european regulators. last week which is kind of the international body that comes up with it. this is not the regulation of the internet. this is making this is making sure that the internet is open to the regulation of the internet is the regulation of numbers, names, routers. that is not what this country stands for. when putin when putin tries to shut down pussy right on facebook china tries to shut down access to google turkey shuts down access to
12:49 am
twitter, those are absolute violations of what we're talking about because no party whether government or private sector should act as a gatekeeper to who gets on the internet. >> as you just said at the outset of your statement there is no more regulation of the first amendment. the ones we are concerned about as china russia, and others who already control the internet. they don't even understand the concept. we're not regulating content. literally a foreign concept. they don't have a first amendment or societal or governmental commitment. what they see is a governmental agency of the united states involved in
12:50 am
setting terms for how the internet can be provided. i think it gives them an excuse to say your government can do it our government can do it, it too. >> with respect i don't think that is the rule. when i met with the secretary-general and says you need to understand that is what this is. and in your home country when you are blocking that would be a violation of our open internet rules. >> i am confident he informed you that in his country they set rules and in your country they can set their own rules. he will remind you of their sovereignty. >> if i could add a critical issue. even at a the level less profound it nonetheless is the case that what we have done sends a message. a
12:51 am
message. the fcc explicitly teeseven practices such as sponsor data. if we were to find a sponsor data practice which gives consumers something for free now we see foreign countries engaging in the same practice. now we see countries starting to do the same thing. what the fcc does is within a vacuum what is bad but the message when it's good is somehow transmitted to the group. >> thank you. commissioner shortly after the latest spectrum auction you and i pinned an op-ed in the "wall street journal" on the designated entity program and the flaws in it.
12:52 am
companies with billions of dollars in revenue are able to get taxpayer credits to purchase discounted spectrum since our op-ed it has been interesting to see that a wide variety of groups have come out to say this issue needs to be addressed including groups. can you upoups ranging from the naacp. can you update us on this program and i hope that the commission as a whole would take a very thorough review of what happened to you can't have been what we intended. this is not benefiting truly small or disadvantaged businesses. >> thank you for the question. since since you and i had a
12:53 am
chance to collaborate we have seen a broad raising of concern across the country. concerns were expressed previously. groups as varied as the naacp have pointed out that this was not the way it was supposed to work. i wish i had a better better story to tell with respect to the facts. it has come to my attention that not only were the people who did not participate in the auction at all there are specific companies from the basket to vermont who put in bids that were outbid by one or both of the designated entities who ultimately were either denied a license or have
12:54 am
been much more than they wanted. part of the problem is these are facilities -based carriers, actual companies providing actual service to actual customers. instead they instead they had to give way to some of this arbitrage. currently they are undergoing the standard review of some of these. at some.petitions may be filed by competitors and i welcome the chairman's. we want to make sure that the integrity of the program remains intact. it is it is important to have a further notice of proposed rulemaking where we make sure these loopholes are closed. >> we could make news. >> i would like to. >> we're going to agree. there are people back your falling off their chairs. >> am glad we can agree. i am against slick lawyers coming in and taking advantage of a program that was designed for a specific
12:55 am
audience and the specific purpose. i am as opposed to that as i was with the commissioner and i disagreed we are going to fix this. these are rules that have been in place since the bush administration. we have rulemaking under way we will issue a new public notice to make sure this specific issue is tito and we're going to make sure that this designated entity have the opportunity to participate and not have designated entities as beards for people who should not. >> i want you to know that i have been pushing for a change and mrs. 2010. it has been a constant refrain for me to ensure. as you know as was said we are reviewing those applications no -- nothing no -- nothing
12:56 am
final has been said. people have an opportunity to weigh in. >> thank you. important issue. i can't leave without addressing the commission recently ordered. it is only in washington that something as innovative has driven so much growth and new ideas as the internet where we end up with an order that essentially applies 1930s style utility regulation and think that that may be the best way going forward to ensure there is future innovation. i want i want to just share the concerns of so many of my colleagues have been raised about the commission's order. i want to ask you briefly. not known for its laissez-faire hands-off regulatory approach. these proposals appear to be much less stifling. normally normally we are not
12:57 am
looking to them as the model of where we want to being in terms of regulations. regulations. can you help me understand as what i see recent examples where we could be disadvantaged to some of our foreign competitors. >> i appreciate that. i have the opportunity to talk to a number of people there. europeans particularly noticed the decisions. they are very aware of what we did and are willing to exploited and take advantage we are willing to be less regulatory and try to drive traffic their way and then let the united states suffer in the process. >> senator, i met with european regulators and told them what we had done so we have not done. i came away with exactly a 180-degree difference that
12:58 am
i talk to ceos of the major international wireless carriers one of whom was quoted in the press. this approach is responsible the key thing was what we did in terms of so-called specialized services managed services, nonpublic internet services and how we specifically said that is not going to be covered. the growth in the internet business verizon their cfo just had a statement about this. the the growth in the internet business is going to be in specific services internet of things over-the-top services that are not public internet services and are specifically precluded from
12:59 am
ò services and are specifically precluded from regulation. that was the big thing that the europeans wanted to talk to me about because they had heard that we were going to cover it. no, we're not. >> i no that my time is up. i we will do follow-up questions because there are specific examples i can think of where already europeans are proposing things that are not as onerous as what was proposed overall by the commission. >> thank you, you, senator. >> thank you very much. we had a joint economic committee hearing. it is good to come back. i am introducing the improving world call quality and reliability act. i know problems are of interest to many members of the commission command i welcome -- i thank you for that. members of the committee, i
1:00 am
hope you will consider cosponsoring our bill which will directly address one of the root causes of the problem. recently you took enforcement action against verizon, major enforcement action for failure to investigate problems with calls not being completed to rural areas. part of this included a commitment to addressing the number of least call routers i i would like to thank you and particularly commissioner for the continued attention to this issue and problem which is now five years old. we still clearly have problems outside of verizon. i we will ask both the chairman and commissioner these cost routers seem to be a major source. do we need to know who they are and require them to follow minimum quality standards? for my colleagues who are not familiar this is what it sounds calls being dropped businesses and homes for no reason and are
1:01 am
not getting the kind of service that they need. they are getting substandard service. >> first of all, he pinpointed something very important the data on that we will finally start getting 1st of next month when the information: carriers are information: carriers are required to file with us. we will be able to say to you with statistical specificity what i believe is the situation that you are attempting to solve and that you are moving this legislation is terrific and had this is something that we are also considering an hour further notice on this topic. i think you have identified. >> thank you. >> thank you very much commissioner, thank you for your lead on this issue. >> thank you very much. much.
1:02 am
one of the positive things about the dissent decree is now we will have workshops. there will be research. in terms of the overall issue the chairman mentioned that april 1 the retention requirements kick in. we will have a clear picture with reports being released. released. i no right now one of the things you mentioned the routers today you know they -- the rules do not apply to them today. thank you very much for reinforcing an issue that we will continue to review. >> thank you very much. last congress i introduced the smart phone prevention act. an unbelievable problem across the country was smart phones being stolen and people getting beat up and sometimes killed.
1:03 am
it requires a smart phone manufacturers and wireless carriers to install kill switches so that consumers can wipe there information and lock the device. following this call to action the carrier signed a voluntary commitment to have this capability on the devices by this summer. laws were passed to have these consumer protections on all phones. we have come a long way on the issue. i think that we need to keep on the pressure which is why i am reintroducing the bill. chairman, are you committed to working with me to address smart phone theft and do you think there can be more done on the national level? >> yes, and thank you for coming down and helping us kickoff the workshop. let me tell you about the results. the kill switch the voluntary agreement i have seen reports uncorroborated in major cities were theft has gone down as a result.
1:04 am
we are not supposed to -- i am not going to break our arms patting ourselves on the back. there needs to be a non- why people as in you can wipe it out and substitute something else -- unit identifier for each device like a vehicle identification number on a car that cannot go way. at our request the 3 g pp has said that they will come out with a standard on that billion of the year. a step forward. second issue there needs to be an on device remote lock, the ability to wipe this sort of thing, the devices after july of this year the devices that come into the market will have that capability.
1:05 am
the 3rd component is we have to have a good stolen phone database. there there is currently one run by the gsm association but it is, well, if you we will participate in this and it is not quite user-friendly and it is not -- and we need to work with them or with law enforcement to improve that. we have been working with law enforcement to bring pressure. those are the steps we have to take. you have been a leader. thank you thank you. >> do you want to add anything? >> one in three robberies involves the theft of a mobile device. in some major metropolitan areas it is one into. it is vitally important that every consumer have access to the ability to remotely wipe the device which should be on every device free of cost.
1:06 am
we should make sure it is available as soon as possible. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> senator wicker has returned. >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> eight hearings in five days. >> five hearings in eight days. well, i have had for hearings in one day. there you go. restlessly rushed back in rush back in and thank you all for filibustering until i could get here. let me ask you you know sometimes we vigorously disagree with our colleagues it is clear that you vigorously disagree with the majority of this panel on the so-called open internet
1:07 am
rule. and i appreciate you doing a cheerfully but also forcefully. and i want you to help us understand the reasons that you have given procedurally and substantively under statute as to why this decision is violated of requirements and the communications act. >> sen., thank you for the question. i could go through all 67 pages, but i we will abbreviate for the sake of the panel and everyone watching. in short there are problems with process and substance. the agency failed to comply with the administrative procedure act in terms of giving public fair notice and an opportunity to
1:08 am
comment on the proposal that it ultimately adopted. here is the indisputable truth. the fcc never propose title ii. through the course of the summers it was widely reported that section 706 was the only proposal. it was later reported that some sort of hybrid proposal was the only proposal. only after the pres.'s announcement's announcement on november 10 the title ii was my plan and i am asking the fcc to implement it did they suddenly change course. >> what would need to have been done for the proposal to actually have been made? >> i always i always say and said this before the president made his announcement my view was whatever the new proposal was, the american was, the american people should be allowed to see and comment on it. that would avoid the pickle that the agency is now in
1:09 am
where he will have to litigate whether or not there was sufficient notice but they're simply was not in this case. you saw a lot of speculation in the press. what is and it? what is not in it? what changes are made? what does it mean that broadband subscriber service affect interaction? no one knew how to comment on it because they did not know what was in the plan. >> with regard to substance. >> with respect to substance it is difficult if not impossible for title ii to be applied to the broadband industry. i will give i will give you one example. with respect to mobile broadband explicitly prohibits from being classified as a private carrier. you will see legal gymnastics in which the fcc cleverly tries to redefine the public switch network in order to have it apply to the mobile broadband
1:10 am
services. i do not think a reviewing court will see that passes muster. similarly with respect to wireline title ii i would argue there are substantial legal hurdles the agency will have to broach. both for reasons of process and substance i think there are serious litigation risks >> is there any question that this will result in years and years of litigation? >> the best proof is what has happened in the past. this is the fcc's 3rd bite at the apple. this over lining to this order is the communications bar we will be busy for quite some time trying to figure out which court to challenge this and command the courts will have a long time to savor its many details. >> and in terms of protecting the flexibility and the ability going forward of this huge engine
1:11 am
of the economy what does this order do? >> it will have a significant negative a significant negative impact the best example of which is mobile data. the argument has been made repeatedly that it has been successful. as my colleague pointed out mobile data has never been a title ii service. it is strained credulity to argue the tremendous increase in mobile investment has been attributable to title ii application. obviously the direction of the smart phone generated an explosion and mobile data usage which carriers had to struggle to keep up with and did so by investing billions in spectrum and billions more in wireless infrastructure. because it was widely regulated we saw all this benefit to consumers. i would argue it is paradoxical that in january
1:12 am
the fcc made a big show. but in february but in february designed the mobile broadband would be subjected to title ii. you cannot have it both ways it does when we want to regulate it extensively. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, commissioners. you, commissioners. i no you have had a long day i have a bunch of basic questions. i am a freshman senator. obviously there is a lot of press. let me ask a couple of basic questions. i want to try and get a number of different responses. fcc reauthorization for when is the last time that happened? >> twenty-five years ago. >> do you think that is a good idea? >> y? >> chairman, y? >> should we do that?
1:13 am
>> the chairman has said he thinks it is a good idea. >> congress decided not to. if they want to decide to do it again, congress makes the rules. >> i think it is a useful exercise because it allows congress to modernize operations and make sure rules keep pace with the times which is important. >> let me follow up on that. you are an independent agency. big policy decisions who makes those costs? congress? the president? you? who is responsible for making big policy decisions that impact telecommunications? >> i did not know who you were -- >> i'm sorry, i sorry, i have so many questions. >> congress has historically set down the parameters and said this is what we want the agency to do.
1:14 am
>> regulating the internet is a big policy decision that was not contemplated 70 years ago? more of a congressional action? >> i think that the congress instructed us to protect the public interest convenience and necessity and gave specific authorities to do that. that is where we were following. >> on a portion of a portion of the economy that was not contemplated seven years ago >> this was 96. the early days of the internet. >> commissioner. >> i agree. in the wake of the decision in 2014 twice having failed in court to have this open internet rules sustained we should turn to congress for guidance. >> is there anything in law quickly that gives the president -- let's say chairman or ranking member go to the senate floor to give a big speech on the
1:15 am
internet and now they wanted to be controlled by regulated are well thought out plan than the pres. gives a speech. is there anything and law at all that says this agency should give more difference to the president? >> absolutely not. >> in terms of consensus, did you try to work consensus as commissioners? there is obviously some pretty differing opinions of this rule. is is that the typical approach to try to work on consensus? do you think it is important? you want to work on consensus. >> i totally agree. 90 percent of our decisions are five zero. the difficult decisions often become contentious. we have had a series of four to one decisions. [inaudible conversations]
1:16 am
>> do you think decisions like this that are highly contentious, splitting the commissioners as mentioned, do you think that we will lead to a lot of mitigation? [inaudible conversations] >> the big guys have said they will sue and have been from day one. >> when your commissioners think it is a legal action, do you think that invites litigation? >> the beauty of it is you get to lawyers and a roman will have three opinions. >> that is cute, but i am not sure there is beauty here at all to be honest. years of litigation will create uncertainty. do you think that is good for investment? >> one of the things to five. >> do you think uncertainty is good for investment in this part of the economy? >> it is never good. we have set out a certain set of rules. people know what the rules of the road are, what the yardsticks are. that did not exist before.
1:17 am
the 2010 rules were not state by the court. they were in effect for four years. >> can you give me an example? >> when they were in effect? >> can you give me an example of regulating a large part of the economy and has resulted in spurring innovation and dramatically increasing economic activity? >> 2010 2010 to 2014 than the previous open internet rules were in place and we had unprecedented growth. there are other examples. when dsl was regulated under title ii during its greatest growth. they are track records that established this kind of growth. >> do you have a a sense of that? >> i respectfully disagree with the chairman. the 2010 order exempted wireless the net neutrality rules.
1:18 am
one of the reasons we live in an increasingly mobile is because the sec was relatively restrained. time will tell, and the best example is europe were europeans have significantly less access to high-speed broadband. and when it comes to wireless in particular 50 percent of the world's 4 g lte subscribers. until february 26 we were relatively restrained. >> mr. chairman, i am out of time. i have additional questions i would like to submit for the record. >> thank you. we will make sure that they get submitted for the record since i can't see anyone else coming in. [laughter] >> senator mentioned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that so much.
1:19 am
it is an interesting topic. i keep thinking back to those who were growing up before mobile phones, cell phones, internet computers television. [laughter] i did not want to go they're. in west virginia there is still discussions. wasn't something we all contributed to? when you look about where we are we will agree this is an intricate part of our life and depend upon it. we are not we're not going to know all the answers to the questions, don't want to lose we have. in rural states such as west virginia it would be better. it's all us it's all us also that basically if we deregulated the airlines it would be better. it was not. deregulation -- when you
1:20 am
deregulated utilities it will be better. it wasn't. so basically with all that being said in a rural a rural area, rural states, a little bit leery of how much we want to we want to make sure we still have access are able to have all of our schools connected in west virginia. how do we be able to take that homework to home and still make sure the child has the ability to do that? >> i can assure you there is not enough market in all in west virginia for all of our friends on wall street or silicon valley to do that. but i am so looking for the balance. i understand. i no you are taking a lot of flak on this but i look at this as a necessity utility to a certain extent. i would not have what i have
1:21 am
the market and nothing able to do what it did. there are some of us on our side of the aisle looking for the middle road without going to court. can we help alleviate that can't do legislation working with our colleagues on the republican side, working together and finding a solution without battling it out in the court system and ending up -- it will be costly know matter what happens in the consumer ends up paying. i would say finding out have you all yourself, the five of you, tried to find commonality hear? >> let me suggest an answer. the commission is a creature of congress. whatever you are able to
1:22 am
agree in terms of legislation, legislation command that is helpful. i do not know the particulars. >> you know when you look at the gdp i looked at china and 9 trillion russia to great britain at two. we are had 17 plus. we have done something right in spite of ourselves. we want to make sure that we can continue to grow. internet has been a big part of that. you have to you have to give us some direction. if you cannot find areas of agreement or consensus and right now i see you split pretty evenly. i think you are all probably good friend to friends who talk and work together, but on this your split. if you cannot come together how in the world do you expect us to?
1:23 am
>> miracles do happen. [laughter] i am a believer. >> we are on the same wavelength. >> one of the things i don't think we could have envisioned is that this body congress recognizes the importance rules for free and open internet. we are encourages, enablers of innovation and investment which is why this conversation is healthy and important. we might not agree on the particulars, but we agree on what we think the endgame is a robust, open and free platform that will allow every committee to be the best. >> accurate for me to evaluate saying the system that we have right now the way we are operating the internet right now is giving as the access and protection that we need but also
1:24 am
allowing the innovators and creators to continue to invest and get a return on that investment and to come down to basically that i am just not getting exactly what i intend? i won't put the money and because you have not let me go. >> one of the things i think -- >> am sorry. >> will you forgive me? >> waiting a long time. maybe he will give me a couple extra. >> he said he would forgive. >> go ahead. >> they are procompetitive elements that no one is talking about. that has been you know been, you know in your community that that has been a bottleneck. this order helps us for gives us the tools to enable that type of investment, to get rid of the barriers. we talk about national
1:25 am
priorities of connecting america, completing that my colleague talks about the homework. it is important to have connectivity in schools and libraries but it is just as important that learning does not stop people get home. enabling more people to connect with paul attachments to provide service will hopefully make things more affordable for more people allowing them to connect at home. all of these things are linked which is why it is so important to continue this conversation. we might not agree on every footnote we agree on the ends. >> i encourage you to continue to work together. >> i would answer that question by saying title ii takes us away from the direction of getting more broadband options. one of the important things
1:26 am
is that there are a number of different policies within our legal authority that we can pursue to give folks in west virginia and kansas and south carolina the same broadband options that people here take for granted. making it easier to deploy wireless infrastructure getting more spectrum to deliver high-speed broadband make it easier to embrace the transition. modernize the eu rate program evening program to make it fair for rural schools to get funding for the program and connected with digital opportunities. >> how that is delivered. >> the possibility of losing control of how it is delivered. [inaudible conversations] >> all of this would ultimately set the regulatory framework in the private sector.
1:27 am
>> i understand. i am not objecting to this. i understand where your coming from. i get a pretty good world-renowned. can i make it better without throwing the baby out with the bathwater? that is what i am looking for. >> you raise an excellent issue. i keep hearing the echo of years ago sitting at this table when the sen. was sitting in the chair saying in his great south carolina draw i am a born-again deregulated because he learned the realities when you say that people who run it other people who will make the rules. this is the most powerful and pervasive platform in the history of the planet. there ought to be rules made by people other than those who were in it. >> i. >> i would say to the
1:28 am
senator from west virginia that perhaps on this issue we can find consensus and inspire those five. >> can i pick up on that? >> if we could work together on a solution. i think that would make a lot of sense for a lot of reasons. one more question. >> one more. we had a pretty good now. i do wonder if this is a solution in search of a problem. talking about rural america thank you for visiting mississippi, rural sunflower county and you saw a groundbreaking telemedicine program attempting to defeat type two diabetes. thank you for coming to this program depends on us of
1:29 am
supported robust mobile broadband connections what is the fcc prepared to do to ensure sufficient us of support remains available so that rural wireless networks remain up and running enabling access to critical life saving and cost-saving advances in medicine? >> you know about phase one as well as our connect america fund. we fund. we're moving ahead in the next phases of that which we hope will be further enablers for investment. we have got broadband experiments and rule initiatives that will help us work out the kinks for us to go to the next stage of broader investment. what we are doing is on a parallel course working out the kinks in terms of ip
1:30 am
transition and the like and continuing to fuel innovation and the monies and investment and working with communities communities, with the private sector, with government officials to ensure the monies that are needed to close these gaps, to ensure that rule -- rural mississippi has the connectivity it needs to further the positive health outcomes that i witnessed in that area. ..
1:31 am
>> >> will lose their current ability to choose? >> can i get an invitation? [laughter] i think the commissioner hit the nail on the head that we now looking at to phase number two of the liability fund and and passed to fit in with your other activities that we spoke about earlier in terms of what we're doing for universal service.
1:32 am
talk about the great job university of mississippi medical center is doing i am a big believer before i took this job i am the chairman of. >> guest: health foundation literally going around the world to say here is how you use the ability to solve the problems. we want to make sure those opportunities exist in this country a statement thanking my colleagues for the second round. >> also i have another question. >> we're almost there. [laughter] >> mr. chairman we have a lead -- a letter from the leadership conference ways in london's and -- weigh in
1:33 am
on this and i asked of the injured for the record. this started the but that prompted 4 million comments i take it that is fairly unprecedented. and a lot of that was expressing their tanks to because they thought there internet would be messed with? correct? and by messing with it, if we think back to what was in the public's mind at the time, it was is will they have to pay more because certain content would have to pay more to get onto the internet. correct? >> that was the major fast lane issue.
1:34 am
>> bayou drawing though order does that allow you, the fcc as a regulator or a referee, along with future regulators of someone suddenly wants to charge more for certain traffic on the internet they and other types of traffic that the fcc will be a referee now or in the future to prevent that? >> yes. we have a flat out opinion on that page gasoline. >> that is in the order? >> yes. >> to you disagree? >> i agree it is in the order. >> number one and there is
1:35 am
no fast lane now. >> i will tell you it wasn't of no concern to 4 million people. >> they had concerns about what would happen look at the actual document is no evidence with paid privatisation moreover if they do agree there is a problem as testified last year you cannot have paid privatization and i agree to. >> you are putting words in my mouth. >> i am quoting you. >> i said there is a waiver process under title role mac to that is a way out. we have done is to have a flat out billion on paid prior to irritation to specify what the wafer test will be. if you represent my position
1:36 am
be specific what that is. >> chairman wheeler, is there a difference in the issue about the application of title to that is before the court this time that was different the last time? explain that to the committee. >> the issue of the 2010 rule the court determined the commission had put in place where all the requirements that could be implied because the agency had not said that by bin providers were calling carriers therefore they could not impose on them. a point that is of interest in the lawsuit that is it
1:37 am
relative what the commissioner said about paid prioritization but the verizon council during oral arguments said i have been explicitly authorized by my client to tell the court that the reason we are appealing this decision we want that unregulated environment that would allow less to do the things you're talking about such as paid prior church station in those issues that were involved with that decision state chairman let me give you the chance there was the senator here that ask a question that the commissioners had answered you requested an opportunity to respond in there was not
1:38 am
time. >> i have additional questions i would submit for the record some adjustment to make sure we're accurate that "there is nothing in title ii for prey -- paid prior to its prior transition status that was completely misconstrued. >> what that statement since it is not how you are interpreting it. >> does title ii provide a
1:39 am
waiver? train wreck you can interpret the rules. >> is there a process we can apply to the commission for a waiver? la you don't take that out of context i was saying there is always an opportunity with title ii to seek a waiver civic of that is the argument continued to argue anything. >> i fouled up on the explanation of things to in a guide to a queue at your word than that title ii did not end it paid prioritization.
1:40 am
[laughter] >> i think the readings that the fcc must be very interesting. >> let me just say that i have the shared responsibility with the chairman of this committee as the majority of of this committee to see if there is any common ground and i am not sure there is if the issues are as divided as they are. and that saddens me because they think reasonable people can usually come together to find a consensus but commissioner, if the chairman says and this has
1:41 am
been typical throughout the last three hours in 50 minutes that this guy is blue you would say it is a different color. that is what has gone on all day. >> the best in fable that the last two 1/2 years we had 89% dash unanimous vote that has gone down at 15 percent precipitously. with neutrality may 2014 asking if you could talk about this i said yes but they never got back to west. and other high-profile issues we put a proposal along the table to reach a consensus only statements are on the record you to look at them on the web site they have been repeatedly
1:42 am
been reproof -- rebuked but i really do feel we couldn't get to yes because we did the first two years to reconcile the one. >> you have my permission since this is my time. >> there is a difference between staking out a position and to say this position which is contrary to the goals of the majority view don't agree with this position than you are not compromising with me i will let that slide. i have heard the commissioner on this but from the daily headlines we were on npr in hopes of consensus with republicans this statement from the commissioner on our location order saying the time i
1:43 am
expressed to meet that test was borne out by the record so we have adjusted course to a dock requirements. want to commend the parties that were cooperative lee on this effort. i sit down with all of my colleagues every other week in a meeting for the hour to say what are the issues and what do we need to work on? i hope we can continue to produce results where we respect each other and we need to be careful of talking about of three defining things to say because you do not take my
1:44 am
definition you will not compromise is not compromise >> will conclude by saying i have a great deal of faith in the senator as a partner as we go forth on a lot of issues on this committee and whether or not we can work out something on this is to be determined but i can assure you that the conversation between senators do and myself are civil within the best spirit of friendliness. >> the think this demonstrates we do need to figure how to resolve the issue with the ambiguity with that discussion going on right now to suggest that we need clarity and to see
1:45 am
paid prioritization is a fairly straightforward way to solve the issue i hope we can't find that sweet spot. >> i assume the senators from the northeast are back because they want to ask questions? can you be quick? of america will seek common ground on brevity for their benefit. >> also thank you for your patience and your perseverance here today i just want to second woman colleague said we will seek common ground but i do think there is a clear policy that has emerged on the open end
1:46 am
internet and neutron neutrality that is the result of a diet -- divided commission and the biggest challenge i would do everything in my power to support it to be greatly sought and prized ellen to explore another area that relates from a letter that i received for radio station regarding notification from the verizon legacy services provided it would be legally terminated unless it could find alternative service options and he was of set understandably be other
1:47 am
options were 2.5 times what they currently paid and it would take weeks to install. wgch service were the 1 million people with information with severe weather, a catastrophe catastrophe, information and they rely on that proposal as the transition this forward go through the process to discontinue existing services as more and more consumers receive these notices to make sure there are sufficient protections for consumers select i understand the went to make sure they're properly informed but also whether they doing to make sure they have recourse so they're not cut off from
1:48 am
service? >> we have just finished the comment period on this issue there are three principles. the first is the public safety principal you cannot negatively affect the ability of people to call 911 interestingly enough cyberdoesn't have power that comes with it so how you deal with that with the power outage situation? second, the consumer needs to know what is going on to their custody transparency. surprise we're changing things is likely you are talking about an third, small and medium operators like you were talking about need to continue to have competitive choices.
1:49 am
so we have all three of those in the rule making and we're wrestling with bringing them forward but you put your finger on a very important issue. >> what is the timing for that? >> i hope to work with all of my colleagues to deliver that sometime around the football season. but we take this quite seriously. >> i just want to conclude on this subject that i raised at the end of last question that one of the of brightest are promising areas in in the video marketplace these days is the flexibility offered to consumers and on-line video
1:50 am
services talking about netflix amazon prime or apple to be that just yesterday to say apple is in talks with tv networks to offer the of less-expensive service a bundle of 25 channels but the comment that struck me for now it does not have nbc universal order of usa m problem because of a falling out between apple and the parent company comcast people all familiar with the matter said. i am concerned about competition. among the the of broadband providers with anti-competitive behavior is real the company's offer new
1:51 am
services require high-speed internet access and times of anti-competitive behavior is one reason i am concerned with the comcast merger we have stuck with time warner. and in fact, use of the underpinning of broadband policy today is the most effective tool to drive innovation unfortunately that reality we face today is private and increases competitive choice. my time is expired but i
1:52 am
just want to invite your comments if you have any from other members of the commission because i think that central principle is so important and you cannot comment on the merger but i would welcome that. >> yes i have opinions tonight television will change more in the next couple of years and has a but the last several decades we now want to watch what we want to watch when we want to watch it on any screen and going forward the commissioner used to be mindful of services to find ways to make them successful so consumers have more choice with a video services
1:53 am
>> i have heard from so many members about people pricing and the answer is not competition that is coming over the top. through the internet and one of the reasons why there has to be an open internet because historically cable systems have chosen who will be on. i will take the service are not that one. and rand we cannot be in that type of the situation for true video competition. >> to the sec when crafting
1:54 am
as neutrality rules make tough decisions? >> yes, sir. >> it is a process but i think it is historically correct. and open its a process to you about all to be heard with the totality of everything that you all had the opportunity to hear. it is a process to make people hear what they need to hear and i think he made the right decision with whole fcc what you have done with our country back in the 19 seventies sprint and mci cavemen less than one-half of 4 percent of the market.
1:55 am
>> seton have to dial 23 numbers and that is what created those industries. to say that they don't have to put up a separate poll you can use the telephone poll stick to pay a reasonable pherae to do so. you know, what the street lined with polls it is reasonable. at&t did not want to be broken up. you have to move on it is all about competition and innovation. when you did the touch on wireless with title ii it was unleashing hundreds of millions of dollars in the networked. they made the right decision
1:56 am
when recruited the fourth there fifth or seventh because the first two companies had monopolies that was 1993 and 1994. when it made the right decision to events competition that is what this is all about. the cable industry did not want at&t to get into cable the wanted the monopoly. these are big players and i've understand. big players. 81 the little people to come in. and have this nice little world and even the decision you just minutes broadband that just says to individual communities you cannot
1:57 am
provide competition that is also the three / two decision. i a understand. these are tough issues they were tough for mci and sprint to be born because you take on the monopoly and the big companies. so we're at a crossroads where the innovation and the investment problems the content creators have thousands of little companies that benefit from the neutrality. it is the heart of our economy were young people want to go. with the venture capitalists put their money and i should point that out they have all been reported with a long-term investment of the infrastructure.
1:58 am
now you know, what else happened all over the country the ages between 20 and 35 they say this is great. i have a new services i can reach 310 million americans. it is the new companies that make the difference. that is what the fcc is all about him the agency of expertise. traneight thank you have a right again. it would be ill-advised to be the agency's of expertise that they can invest at the same pace with the companies
1:59 am
and the new internet. so with bill whole history millbrae's says harry it is long distance. [laughter] because they got away with it. but we're doing here to stay there is another way to do business and makes it possible for our country. >> i assume there wasn't a question in there. [laughter] in fact, the first question was. [laughter] that was a leading question there was a question. >> than he is undecided.
2:00 am
[laughter] . .
2:01 am
2:02 am
2:03 am
2:04 am
2:05 am
2:06 am
2:07 am
2:08 am
2:09 am
2:10 am
2:11 am
2:12 am
2:13 am
2:14 am
2:15 am
2:16 am
2:17 am
2:18 am
2:19 am
2:20 am
2:21 am
2:22 am
2:23 am
2:24 am
2:25 am
2:26 am
2:27 am
2:28 am
2:29 am
2:30 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on